Merged 9/11 No Plane/Energy Weapon discussion thread

[CompusMentus]

When are you going to present some data?

WB Daibach!

Compus

 

[Stellafane]

Thank you for an informative and interesting post Stella.


Compus

Thanks. I know you could have easily responded yourself -- and done it better, if our respective posting histories are any indication -- but I thought I'd jump in and add my two cents.

 

[dafydd]

The dust samples point to a non-airplane crash mechanism.

No, they don't, whatever a 'non-airplane crash mechanism' is. Past experience tells me that you will not deign to explain that phrase.

 

[dafydd]

WB Daibach!

Compus

Diolch yn fawr.( Thank you very much)

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

My bad. I always heard it was aluminum burning. I guess I should have checked into it more before I posted. I can't believe I pulled a twoofer moove.

Twoofers never admit to being wrong.

Upon recieving correct information, you changed your position to incorporate the new knowledge.

 

[WildCat]

The big difference is that supposedly an aircraft flew very near WTC 1 as it was emitting a huge amount of ... stuff ... into the air. That stuff wasn't disturbed or whipped around like you'd expect if a huge column of air came by.

We've been through this before, but wakes don't get pulled behind an aircraft, and they certainly don't travel past the aircraft if it were to stop suddenly, for example slamming into a humongous skyscraper...

 

[WildCat]

Really? How is the wake of an airplane fundamentally different from the wake of a boat?

It's not, if we're talking a submerged submarine in the open ocean.

A surface ship? No resemblance.

 

[Macgyver1968]

My bad. I always heard it was aluminum burning. I guess I should have checked into it more before I posted. I can't believe I pulled a twoofer moove.

This is the difference between a truther and a debunker. When a debunker says something that is untrue...he is willing to admit he is wrong. Unlike a truther.

 

[tsig]

Twoofers never admit to being wrong.

Upon recieving correct information, you changed your position to incorporate the new knowledge.

What he was supposed to do was double down and claim he was still correct.

 

[JohnG]

I've provisionally come to the conclusion that it was projected imagery...

The average person seems to take it for granted that advanced, realistic "projected imagery" technology like that seen in film and TV is already here or perhaps just a few years away. They are wrong, as you'll discover if you actually research the subject. The technology simply doesn't exist today nor did it exist 11 years ago. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it.

When a nonexistent technology is posited to make a theory work, a sane, intelligent person needs to take a breath and consider the possibility that their theory is flawed. I could posit that the city of Atlantis hasn't been found because it is hidden by a cloaking device, but no one need take my "theory" seriously until I first prove that A: Atlantis is a real B: cloaking devices exist and C: cloaking devices are capable of hiding an entire city. There are no exotic explanations required to explain why Atlantis hasn't been found if it never existed in the first place. Similarly you are starting with the conclusion that no planes were involved in the 9/11 attacks. You are then forced to reverse engineer some sort of unwieldy and implausible theory to square with your conclusion. All you are doing is committing a "God of the gaps"-type fallacy, but employing a science fiction technology instead of a supernatural agent to patch the gaping holes in your theory. Can't you see that?

 

[beachnut]

I wanted to see if any of you could produce clear evidence of a wake at 9:03AM. None of you did.

I did. There is wake in this photo, but due to clear air, it can't be seen; wake is there. Like the wind in clear air. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

All your claims on 911 are self-debunking. The steel turns to dust claim, delusional nonsense. Steel turned to foam, a dumber claim, needs zero debunking. The wake, you fail to understand is invisible in clear air. This is easy to debunk the nonsense claims you have; what else to you have besides the failed Al can't burn junk?

Clear air, and wake. Too easy! Photo of 175 tracked by multiple RADAR sites from takeoff to impact at the WTC. Photo verifies RADAR, RADAR verifies photo. Right, I understand you don't understand RADAR is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum, like light used to form photos, but then you don't seem to use science when making up your wild stories about 911.

There is wake in this photo, and no body can prove otherwise.

 

[Axxman300]

A better authenticated photo of conditions reliably known to have existed at the 9:03+/- timeframe is the David Handschuh photo, together with his published acknowledgment that he did not see an aircraft (and no evidence of any aircraft is seen in the photo either).

Here is that photo:



The photo shows neither evidence of an aircraft of any size....

Other than the flaming right jet engine visible as it is launched out the other side of WTC 2...yeah, no sign of an airplane...

 

[Drs_Res]

What he was supposed to do was double down edit the wiki page, claim the second link was dis-info because of the word military at the top and claim he was still correct.

ftfy

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Other than the flaming right jet engine Plymouth Hubcap visible as it is launched out the other side of WTC 2...yeah, no sign of an airplane...

FTFY. You are talking to Jammy after all.

ETA: I see that you're new here so here's some backstory:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5692798#post5692798

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

No...she is "attention seeking" by saying crap that she knows we will respond to.

I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise that some people enjoy negative attention and abuse...

 

[threadworm]

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Ah, but there are "some".

No, there aren't.

Name a single weapon that uses electromagnetism, and remember taser isn't a correct answer.

 

[WTC Dust]

Please explain...and what does carbon have to do with anything?...does anything that has a carbon atom mean somthing?


Carbon-based materials burn at the same or nearly the same maximum temperature.

Does everything that has a carbon atom in their molicule smell the same?

No. Silly question.

Responses in red.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Carbon-based materials burn at the same or nearly the same maximum temperature.

Responses in red.

..and what is that maximum temperature?

 

[WTC Dust]

Didn't Millette perform his studies recently? His studies were made on dust that was years old. Anything about time passing that makes the dust different? Well, then Millette's study should have no value to you.

Any study of the dust is going to take place on dust that was scooped up off the street or from nooks. None of it can be said to be free of contamination.

The chain of custody since collection is one link: me. Time passing is an issue, but it's not a disqualifying issue. Potential contamination is an issue, but it is common to all samples of WTC dust, and therefore does not, by itself disqualify my samples.

Most of this isn't worth a response, but I thought I'd point out the blatant hypocrisy of the above answer.

WTC Dusts thinks that some samples of dust collected from a random ledge in New York years after the evens of September 11, 2001 are perfectly traceable, verifiable and uncontaminated samples. But things like radar data and seismic data and eyewitnesses and freaking airplane parts and passenger DNA are unverifiable.

And a hypothesized Directed-Energy weapon is the best explanation, despite the fact that it explains nothing at all because no one dares to describe it or how it works or show it exists, and despite the evidence and physics showing it's impossible.

Nothing else needs be said.


ETA: And please don't respond inside a quote. Makes it unnecessarily difficult to quote you. Thanks in advance.